Re: Terminology

["Dotan Cohen" <dotancohen gmail com>]

On 16/09/06, Warren Baird <photogeekmtl gmail com> wrote:
> Hi Dotan,
>
> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> > That is what I had in the original definition: if someone wants a
> > photo to appear in more than one album, then he would copy it to the
> > second album. Each album would have a seperate .jpg file, just as each
> > 'real' album would have a seperate piece of paper.
>
> Right, but that would be carrying the limitations of the physical world
> into the virtual world...     I don't think it is good to have to make
> duplicates of a photo to put it in multiple albums.   I can't think of a
> single use case where that's the default behaviour I'd want - if I have
> a photo in multiple album and I do something to it (tag, touchup,
> modify), I want that change to be carried across all albums...

Yes, on this point agree. However, I'd personally prefer to NOT call
them albums if they don't behave like a physical album. But I
understand that I'm not in the majority, so I'll stop making a point
of it. Any other opinions are, of course, welcome.

> >> I'm not sure about limiting the tags.  I like the ability to visually
> >> drag and drop tags that we currently have - and if you eliminate the
> >> unused tags, you wouldn't be able to use that mechanism to tag your
> >> photos.    Maybe providing an advanced option to eliminate all the
> >> unused tags would be good - but I don't think it should be the default
> >> behaviour.
> >
> > I think that the default behaviour should be to show only the tags
> > relevant to the album. If you're broswing the album of your football
> > league, and you click on the tag for your cat, nothing will be
> > displayed. With 200+ tags (and we're not done) the idea of sorting
> > photos into albums sounds great- if for only managing the tags! But a
> > checkbox "View -> Display All Tags" would be acceptable.
>
> I think the default behaviour should be to show all the tags.   I think
> a lot of people will use drag 'n drop to tag new photos.   Imagine the
> following.
>
> I import 50 new photos into a new album.  I want to now apply tags to
> these photos, but since they are all new photos and it's a new album -
> there are *no* tags showing.    To a naive user, this would be very
> confusing.   I definitely think advanced users should have a way to
> eliminate tags that aren't used in the album - but it shouldn't be the
> default...

I disagree here too, but so long as I can change the behaviour for my
own use, then I'm satisfied. I think that you've looking at it from
the perspective of making like easier for the tagger, and not for the
viewer, which are not always the same person! For instance, when I
send a CDROM of my wedding to a friend, he doesn't need to see the
tags of his nephews. More opinions on this are welcome.